Rethinking How We 'Conference'

Been to a conference lately, excited to learn from big name presenters, then found your brain throbbing by the end of the first day, unable to take in another idea? If so, you're not alone.

Most conferences are put together according to formulas designed decades ago, in an era before blackberries and information overwhelm, with scant attention paid to how the brain digests new ideas. However with a few tweaks, conferences could be a lot more fun and useful for everyone.

Conferences are not going away.With everyone spending more and more time online, the desire for ‘real' human connections and a sense of community is increasing. Meeting this need, many hotels the world over are booked up a year in advance, whether it's a few thousand at a sex therapist convention (their recent conference tagline: 'dynamic, interactive, creative'), or 25,000 at the society for neuroscience conference. Every industry group seems to have its own global, national, state and local event. While conference attendance tanked during the GFC, the numbers are climbing back up again, to about 60 or 70% what they were. And in the same way that bands tour more today because no one buys records any more, with book sales down, authors are on the road more than ever, all vying to tell their story.

We're stuck in an old modelWhile conferences are getting bigger and more common, I don't think they are getting a whole lot better. They're getting more efficient and streamlined (think online registration and more meal options), but I don't think they are getting more effective.

People have two basic goals when attending a conference: to encounter new ideas, and to connect in person with folks you wouldn't meet otherwise. Whether you are there to learn, to network, to research, to buy or to sell, these two goals are common across the board.

However, conferences are not very good at maximizing these goals. Increased financial pressures on events means organizers are packing more into programs to try to make them more attractive, which means less ability to digest new ideas. And the increased size of events has organizers think in more industrial-type ways about herding people around the event, instead of thinking about how to form connections between people. I am often haunted by gaunt faces at the big conferences. These should be rich social experiences, yet increasingly leave people alienated.

The real dilemma: bums on seats versus participant experience.Here is the core dilemma. For conference organizers (of which I am one), there is a conflict between wanting to fill seats (which requires having a large number of presenters and topics covered), and wanting to create the best possible experience for participants (which requires something else entirely).

Most conferences naturally focus on the side of filling seats. This means putting in as many ‘name' speakers as possible, and making the program look irresistible, the 'Sizzler' smorgasbord of events. The theory goes that if the spread looks so insanely delicious, people won't be able to resist attending. (One reason we attend if there are big names speaking is the reward from increasing one's status, that happens when we meet famous people.)

The outcome of this approach can be measured by an informal but telling metric: the number of people in the conference sessions, versus in the hallways, on the 2nd or 3rd day of an event. At a recent global conference I attended, the hallways were packed by the end of day two. People's brains couldn't take any more.

A different modelAt the 2010 NeuroLeadership summit (disclosure: yes, I run this event), the hallways were bare at the end of the third day. This wasn't an accident, nor was it easy to achieve. This conference is all about the brain, so naturally we had to make participation as ‘brain friendly' as possible. Through experimenting over 5 events across 4 years we finally think we have it right (and by no means did we get it right at the first few events). The difference came from focusing on the participant's real goals, which are ‘useful new ideas', and ‘new human connections'.

After some soul searching, I have decided to give away the insights we developed about conference design. These insights can be applied at least in part to just about any kind of event, from a small leadership retreat to a bigger convention. (Though some of these suggestions in full would be challenging at the bigger conferences.)

1. IDEAS ARE LIKE FOODIn the brain, information is (somewhat) like food. It needs to be digested, before you can add more. And big ideas, especially new ideas, are like a lot of food - they really need time to be integrated, or you quickly become mentally ‘full'. (There is a new paper on embedding learning, called the "AGES" model, recently out in the NeuroLeadership Journal.)

Digestion doesn't get resolved by adding 10 minutes of Q&A at the end of a session. People need regular opportunities to digest information. The model we found that works is this: Every 1.5 hours there should be a serious break in the programming. The break should be at least 30 mins, then 1 hour, or 1.5hrs. The idea is you are never in a room for more than 1.5 hrs before a significant change of space (both mental and physical). Over a day this works out to allow 4 lots of 1.5 hr sessions, which is actually a lot of being in a room. But it's broken up a lot so that people can integrate the ideas through discussion or simply resting their heads. (Napping is also good for integrating information).

Secondly, and this is the harder part, conferences need to be more diligent about incorporating digestion into sessions themselves. At the NeuroLeadership Summit we use what we developed and called the "DEAQ" model for presentations.

Simply put, a session can't have more than 30 minutes of formal, pre-planned delivery. Within those 30 minutes, every 10 minutes there needs to be one of 4 interactive components: • Digestion (which means just letting participants discuss the ideas amongst themselves). • An Exercise, which means an activity that participants do alone or with each other to experience a model. • An Application, which involves discussion about the applications or implications of an idea, often facilitated by a person that is not the presenter. • And of course, Questions, which is a standard Q&A.

A session that takes 90 minutes all up is so much more energizing and engaging in this format. There's more involvement, more ‘generating' of the ideas by the participants, which is one of the key requirements for embedding learning.

Using the DEAQ model isn't easy: presenters often push back, they know they can't just turn up and (somewhat mindlessly) do their usual shtick - but that has some upside to it as well, as you can imagine. It also takes educating participants so they get the best out of this format, for example explaining how to best ask questions.

2. SOCIAL IS EVERYTHINGWhen I have asked around, most people say the primary value from a conference is the people they meet, not the learning sessions. New business relationships are often far more valuable than new ideas. Maybe conferences have their time allocation all wrong here?

When you go to a conference and see there are 200 folks you want to talk to, but only get enough time to talk to 20, it can be very disappointing. The positive expectations of all these new connections is rewarding, but then unmet expectations cause a threat response. Conferences can and should get better at maximizing the human connections. Study after study shows that social matters to the brain. One study showed that someone's social connections determined health outcomes more than any other health factors.

At the NeuroLeadership Summit we designed the event so that everyone stayed together for every breakfast, lunch and dinner, plus a drinks event, which added up to a total of 4.5 hours of unstructured social time. There was also, because of the design of the sessions, an inbuilt system that had participants meet everyone at their table, at nearly every session. So at a conference with 200 others, it's possible to have quality conversations with well over half the group, which is far more enriching on many levels. (Want the math? 12 sessions in total, 8 people at a table each time, makes for 96 people you meet and discuss the sessions with while at a table, plus around 12 hrs of social time.) All that makes for a great buzz, and tons of new connections, which the brain likes both internally and in the real world.

3. DO LESS, BUT DO IT REALLY WELLOne of the challenges of this format is that now you only have 4 possible topics a day. How do you make that work? Now a conference becomes more like a piece of art. You have to decide what to leave out, and choose just the topics that are of most importance. Then do these topics really well.

This is indeed the harder bit, and not necessarily possible for bigger conferences. To achieve this you need someone like an ‘event architect' who has a vision and can oversee the building of the event really carefully, and work with all the people running sessions to make sure the content is right on the mark. You can't afford 1 or 2 bad sessions when you only have 4 a day. It's what you leave on the pile that makes the whole event richer for everyone.

4. WORK WITH, NOT AGAINST, THE NATURAL FLOW OF ENERGYThe final thing to manage is to recognize the normal ebb and flow of mental energy during a day and during the program overall. Here's a few tips:• Put the big ideas early in an event, when people can still digest them, and then big ideas can weave through the rest of the program• Use the morning for really big ideas and the afternoon sessions for practical applications• Allow for even more interaction after lunch within sessions• Have shorter sessions more often as the program goes along, e.g. on a 2nd or 3rd day, when people can digest less• Put people into smaller groups after lunch when interaction will help keep people awake

In summary, conferences can be a whole lot more fun and useful if we think about the real goals people have for conferences and build programs with the brain in mind. I hope this has been helpful to readers.

David, I so appreciate your attempts to redesign the conference experience. Too many conferences I have attended have been less that stellar learning events.

Your premise concerning the two primary reasons why people attend conferences (learning and connecting to people) is undoubtedly true for many - but not for all. Differences between people's personalities (among other factors) suggest that the format you have adopted would not work for everyone.

Indeed, even as a strongly extroverted individual, I don't attend conferences to connect with people. I go to learn from people who have a level of expertise and/or experience which I and my fellow attendees do not possess (I know I am making a rather large assumption here - perhaps a faulty one). In all candor, I don't come to listen to fellow attendees but to those whose expertise I value -- in other words, the speakers! That may sound harsh concerning my fellow learners, but it is the bias I bring to conferences.

Furthermore, when I am learning, I don't enjoy having to participate in activities with people I don't know. All too often, I have found these discussion times rather invaluable. Once again, this reflects my personal preference for learning, and I know that many others would differ.

Additionally, when I read your description of the "requirement" for people to spend time together over meals throughout the day, I had a mild averse physical reaction. This seems exhausting and triggered a threat response even thinking about it. Even if these events are not "mandatory," I fear that those who want more private time may feel an unwelcome degree of social pressure, and even disapproval, if they opt out of these structured events.

As I said at the start, I really appreciate your openness to redesigning conference formatting to make it a much more powerful event for attendees. And, as always, I appreciate your application of insights from brain science to the topic at hand (after all, I am a member of the NeuroLeadership Institute, and I will be attending this year's summit in San Francsisco!).

But I am concerned that once again, we fall into the trap of looking for a one-size-fits-all approach in our thinking. Differences between personalities also need to be factored in trying to make a conference work for all. No easy task to be sure.

David, I so appreciate your attempts to redesign the conference experience. Too many conferences I have attended have been less that stellar learning events.

Your premise concerning the two primary reasons why people attend conferences (learning and connecting to people) is undoubtedly true for many - but not for all. Differences between people's personalities (among other factors) suggest that the format you have adopted would not work for everyone.

Indeed, even as a strongly extroverted individual, I don't attend conferences to connect with people. I go to learn from people who have a level of expertise and/or experience which I and my fellow attendees do not possess (I know I am making a rather large assumption here - perhaps a faulty one). In all candor, I don't come to listen to fellow attendees but to those whose expertise I value -- in other words, the speakers! That may sound harsh concerning my fellow learners, but it is the bias I bring to conferences.

Furthermore, when I am learning, I don't enjoy having to participate in activities with people I don't know. All too often, I have found these discussion times rather invaluable. Once again, this reflects my personal preference for learning, and I know that many others would differ.

Additionally, when I read your description of the "requirement" for people to spend time together over meals throughout the day, I had a mild averse physical reaction. This seems exhausting and triggered a threat response even thinking about it. Even if these events are not "mandatory," I fear that those who want more private time may feel an unwelcome degree of social pressure, and even disapproval, if they opt out of these structured events.

As I said at the start, I really appreciate your openness to redesigning conference formatting to make it a much more powerful event for attendees. And, as always, I appreciate your application of insights from brain science to the topic at hand (after all, I am a member of the NeuroLeadership Institute, and I will be attending this year's summit in San Francsisco!).

But I am concerned that once again, we fall into the trap of looking for a one-size-fits-all approach in our thinking. Differences between personalities also need to be factored in trying to make a conference work for all. No easy task to be sure.

Thanks for your comments. You are probably quite correct - it would be even better to take into account different needs of individuals, as the structure I described may be a version of 'hell' for some people. Perhaps the specific conference I built this around has a type of participant that really wants discussion.

The key also is not just participant discussion, but making sure there is real value in what is discussed...that's harder than it sounds. Trial and error to find just the right question to have people focus on is key. I think it's easy to go overboard and think that just getting people to connect is a good thing.

In all, the more we can respect the reality of 'neural diversity', the better. My 'one-size-fits-all' approach may only work in some situations, for the right conferences (in topic, size and participant.) And even then I think it will be good to allow flexibility. Having said that, it's been great to find a way to make this specific conference more engaging than most I attend.

David, I've been designing and facilitating conferences for thirty years, the last twenty of which have been devoted to creating participant-driven conference designs that respond to many of the issues you outline.

I'll typically use an approach where the conference program is determined partially or completely by the participants at the event, rather than by a program committee in advance. The reason for this is simple (and depressing)—by comparing program committee choices with the topics participants actually schedule I've found that the best program committees predict barely half the sessions participants want.

Most people don't believe it's possible to build an optimum conference program on the fly at an event—until they attend one and experience how well the process works. I've been doing this for twenty years now, and thousands of conference participants have become believers.

In my experience, about 2% of attendees at my conferences display preferences like those described by Scott above, and about half of these people discover that they prefer a connection-rich design once they experience it. Yes, you won't satisfy everyone with a design like this, but delighting 90+% of your attendees (based on 20 years of my conference evaluations) is far better than the pitifully low expectations of attendees at traditional conferences.

Adrian - Sounds like a great format - be fun to try it sometime. I do a lot of facilitation of group events and in that instance it's usually better to get the agenda from the group. As well as increasing accuracy, choosing topics on the fly probably also generates more buy in because of the increased sense of autonomy through people making choices.
I guess in a bigger conference you could still have 'name' speakers, but then choose topics for them to talk about as you go - would be indeed an intriguing format. Thanks for your comments :)

Yes, David, at participant-driven conferences, established experts do, as you would expect, tend to provide more input and direction than other attendees, and I've also noticed they generally enjoy responding to the conference-generated topics off-the-cuff, rather than in the context of a prepared session.

And in addition, at every conference of this type I've ever organized, completely unexpected popular topics and associated participant resources have been uncovered. Sometimes, attendees have been completely unaware until the event that they possess expertise and experience that their peers really want to learn about. Sometimes, people have previously thought (through attending prior traditional conferences) that no one was interested in their work, only to discover the opposite when finally given a brief opportunity to share with their peers.

Uncovering these resources from "the people formerly known as the audience" is one of the most rewarding outcomes when facilitating participant-driven conferences.

Great advice here for face-to-face conferences. (I have been designing and facilitating them for years, and never have I seen guidelines for developing engaging sessions spelled out so clearly!)

Much of my work today involves setting up and facilitating virtual meetings, where at least some or all participants attend remotely. (I also run workshops on planning and running engaging virtual meetings.) While I have some guidelines to offer my clients (e.g. plan for 80% active participation/20% passive; change activities every 7-9 minutes; engage people different ways to keep them guessing; etc.), I wonder what guidelines you might have, David, for virtual meetings/conferences.

Great post and so timely in this "spring" (Northern Hemisphere) conference season... especially the capitalist dilemma of butts in seats versus great conference experiences.

You are quite right about the "conference" format being about 20 years outdated - and it amazes me that "Death by PowerPoint" garners about 6 million hits on Google. (That should say something in and of itself.)

As conference planners and conference goers, we need to step back from the "model" in place and figure out what are the outcomes we want to achieve - and then work backwards from there. (Maybe the word "conference" is the wrong one to even be using at times!)

Speakers and track layout (if there are even going to be "tracks" should be closer to the end of the planning once the desired results and outcomes are decided.

I look forward to seeing more discussion and posts on this topic. Thanks for writing this blog!

This is a very interesting post, but I think it makes a distinction between learning and networking that is incorrect. To me, these are closely related, certainly in a conference setting but also for both activities in general.

Learning at a conference, including the grand speakers, is, in my experience a powerful facilitator of networking. It is much easier to begin a discussion with someone you don't know if you can reference a common experience. "What did you think of ...(fill in the name) session?" is an easy opener for starting a new networking relationship.

Also,once the networking discussion begins around a topic, both the learning and the networking get extended by the lively exchanges of interpretations and views. The social environment reinforcees both learning and networking. In the best conferences, these occur seamlessly.

Being avid supporters of the application of neuroscience to organizational performance improvement in general, we apply these same ideas to learning programs. We call the equivalent to a speaker an "enrichment experience" that people digest by talking about, applying it to real situations, and sharing the results with others. While a traditional training program typically has about a 10% content retention rate, our programs are closer to 90%. And because it is done in a team environment, group morale soars.

I am all for the new conference design and suggest we extend this to all learning experiences.

Two weeks ago I went to a talk given by Daniel Goleman. Of course, it was full. He did two different things that made the talk different from other talks of this kind:

1. He made the public participate: he made us meditate for 3 minutes to show us how regain focus
2. He made us talk to each other to share some experiences, to show us how talking about a good experience can make us overcome the feelings of a bad experience.

Though the talk was long and a little bit chaotic, these two points increase the sensation that the talk was fun and that you met someone new.